Johnson v. Jeusen

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 13, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01824
StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Jeusen (Johnson v. Jeusen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Jeusen, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Timothy Ray Johnson, No. CV 20-01824-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 B. Jeusen, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Timothy Ray Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex (ASPC)-Florence, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will 18 grant the Application and dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied basic necessities, 8 was deprived of his property, and had his safety threatened at ASPC-Florence. Plaintiff 9 names Assistant Deputy Warden B. Jeusen, Lieutenant S. King, and Captain Pizano as 10 Defendants and requests injunctive and monetary relief. 11 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that “they will not give clothes to anybody at all,” 12 and “they say they have no boxers, no towels, no socks, no pants.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) According 13 to Plaintiff, he had to wear the same pants without boxers for two weeks and had to “drip 14 dry[]” after showering because he had no towel. (Id.) “In the long run,” he began to “stink 15 like [he] was a[n] animal,” felt like an animal, and decided to kill himself. (Id.) After he 16 swallowed razor blades, “the officers started making fun of [him],” so he harmed himself 17 “again and . . . again and again.” (Id.) Plaintiff has “all kinds of scars,” and his “head is 18 not right towards the officers.” (Id.) “[T]he voices are very, very, bad and . . . are not 19 happy about how these officers have treated [him],” that is, “like an animal in a feed lot.” 20 (Id.) 21 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims that “they have lost [his] property[] all kinds of 22 times” and have “ma[d]e up reason[s] on how the property came up missing.” (Id. at 6.) 23 “Every time it is the same kind of property that comes up missing”—soap, shampoo, 24 grease, body wash, envelopes. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, “they” allow “porters who are 25 thieves” to roll up his property or simply give the property away to other inmates. (Id.) It 26 makes Plaintiff “furious” to know that the officers he is supposed to trust with his life allow 27 his property to get taken simply because they do not want to roll it up themselves, and he 28 has tried to kill himself as a result. (Id. at 6-7.) 1 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that another inmate has thrown hot grease, urine, 2 or feces on him on four occasions and the sergeants, lieutenants, and captains “all know” 3 but have “still put [him] in the same pods, over and over.” (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff claims “they 4 are refusing to house [him] anywhere else but the same pods” where he gets these 5 substances thrown on him. He alleges that he wrote to “all of these people and told them 6 the problem,” but either got no response or was told there were no moves at this time, there 7 was no room anywhere, and the basis for his request was “not a reason to move.” (Id.) 8 Plaintiff, who is currently in the watch pod, asked to be moved somewhere else when he 9 was removed from watch, but “this was a no from the [lieutenant].” (Id.) After Plaintiff 10 “told him they said he was not done [he] was told, ‘come back to our pod, you won’t get 11 greased.’” (Id.) Plaintiff “does not know what to do.” (Id.) Plaintiff now has a “trust 12 issue” with the officers, who have failed to “save [him] from getting thrown on.” (Id.) 13 IV.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Parratt v. Taylor
451 U.S. 527 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Jackie King v. Mitri Massarweh
782 F.2d 825 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Michael Andrew Hunter
19 F.3d 895 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. Jeusen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-jeusen-azd-2020.